Partly allowed¶10

Ravi Sharma v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2025CRA-S/1471/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act Section 18; 1.5 kg opium; non-commercial quantity; quantum of sentence reduction; sentence already undergone; custody certificate; no minimum punishment; proportionality in sentencing; reformation; involvement in other NDPS cases; conviction upheld; Special Judge Moga; FIR No.99/10.07.2006; Police Station Mehna; CRA-S-1471-SB-2007; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Harpreet Singh Brar; Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257; Ravada Sasikala AIR 2017 SC 1166; sentence modification appeal disposed 21.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of: judgment of conviction dated 14.06.2007 upheld; order of sentence modified — rigorous imprisonment of four years and fine with default mechanism reduced to the period of sentence already undergone (01 year, 03 months and 08 days). ¶10

Ravi Sharma Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant (RI four years and fine under Section 18 NDPS Act) may be modified to the sentence already undergone, the conviction not being assailed on merits. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Since no minimum punishment is prescribed under Section 18 NDPS Act for the non-commercial quantity (1.5 kg opium), the Court held it in the interest of justice to reduce the awarded sentence to the period already undergone (01 year, 03 months, 08 days).

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of conviction of the learned trial Court indicates no perversity, is based on correct appreciation of evidence, and is upheld; the conviction is not disturbed.

¶8

Key takeaways

In NDPS matters where the accused is involved in other cases, the primary consideration ought to be the severity of the offence; involvement in other NDPS cases does not preclude reduction of sentence to custody already undergone, as coordinate benches of this Court have done.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Single Judge, Harpreet Singh Brar, J.) disposed of CRA-S-1471-SB-2007: the appellant, convicted on 14.06.2007 by the Special Judge, Moga under Section 18 NDPS Act for possessing 1.5 kg opium (FIR No.99 dated 10.07.2006, P.S. Mehna, District Moga) and sentenced to RI four years and Rs.5,000/- fine (default RI 03 months), did not assail the conviction on merits and sought reduction of sentence to that already undergone (01 year, 03 months, 08 days per custody certificate). Observing that no minimum punishment is prescribed under Section 18 NDPS Act for the non-commercial quantity, and relying on Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 on proportionate, reformative sentencing; noting over 18 years of agony of trial since the 2006 FIR and the appellant's conduct; and following coordinate-bench practice (Pritam Singh @ Preeti CRA-S-1769-SB-2010; Ram Lal CRA-S-986-SB-2005; Raj Pal CRA-S-68-SB-2005 and CRA-S-34-SB-2005; Gurmail Singh CRA-S-1976-SB-2007) that involvement in other NDPS cases does not bar such reduction, the Court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

¶1

604 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRA-S-1471-SB-2007 Date of decision: 21.05.2025

RAVI SHARMA

...APPELLANT

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶9

Present: Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for th e appellant.

¶10

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Th e prayer in the present appeal i s to set aside the judgment of conviction and o rder of sentence dated 14.06.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Moga, w hereby the appellant was co n victed and sentenced for the offence punish a ble under Section 18 of Nar c otic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.99 dated 10.07.2006 r egistered under Section 18 of NDPS Act at P o lice Station Mehna, District Moga. 2. Th e appellant was sentenced for k e eping in his possession 1.5 kgs

¶14

of Opium, as m e ntioned below:

¶15

Offence	Sentence
Section 18 Drugs of the Narcotic and Psychotropic	Rigorous offour imprisonment for a period yearsand to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.5,000 of fine,t months. /- and in default of payment o further undergo RI for 03

¶16

MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶17

CRA-S-1471-SB-2007

¶18

¶19

Le a rned Counsel for the appellant s ubmits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 1 4.06.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, M oga on merits and restricts hi s prayer to modification of the order on quant u m of sentence dated 14.06.20 0 7 to that of sentence already undergone by t h e appellant. As per the custod y certificate, the appellant has undergone a pe r iod of 01 year, 03 months and 0 8 days. 4. Pe r contra , learned State couns e l opposes the prayer of the appellant as th e learned Court below has pas s ed a well-reasoned judgment based on correc t appreciation of evidence avail a ble on record as such, he does not deserve an y leniency. Moreover, the petit i oner is involved in one more case.

¶20

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record wit h their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was convicted for b e ing in possession of 1.5 kgs o f Opium, which falls under the purview of Se c tion 18 of NDPS Act. As p e r the custody certificate, the appellant has u n dergone a period of 01 year, 0 3 months and 08 days, out of total sentence o f four years, in the instant cas e . Since there is no minimum punishment pr e scribed under Section 18 of NDPS Act, for the noncommercial qu a ntity this Court is of the opinio n that it would be in the interest of justice, if th e sentence awarded to the app e llant is reduced to the period already underg o ne by him.

¶21

In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 , the

¶22

Hon'ble Supre m e Court has opined that awar d ing of sentence is not a mere formality in c r iminal cases. When a mini m um and maximum term is prescribed by t h e statute with regard to the per i od of sentence, a discretionary

¶23

MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶24

CRA-S-1471-SB-2007 3

¶25

element is ves t ed in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gra v ity of the offence, manner in w hich the offence is committed, age of the acc u sed, should be considered whi l e determining the quantum of sentence and th i s discretion is not to be used a r bitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all re l evant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the prin c iple of proportionality to e n sure the sentence is neither excessively har s h nor does it come across as lenient.

¶26

Fu r ther, the Hon'ble Supreme Cou r t in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 , has reiterated that t h e imposition of sentence also serves a social p urpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage cau s ed not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this reg a rd is well settled that opport u nities of reformation must be granted and su c h discretion is to be exercis e d by evaluating all attending circumstances o f each case by noticing the nat u re of the crime, the manner in which the crim e was committed and the con d uct of the accused to strike a balance betwee n the efficacy of law and the c hances of reformation of the accused.

¶27

A p erusal of the judgment of co n viction passed by the learned trial Court indi c ates no perversity in its findi n gs and the same is based on correct appreci a tion of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ( supra ) was lo d ged on 10.07.2006 and the ap p ellant has been suffering the agony of trial f o r last more than 18 years. Sinc e his conviction, he has grown into law-abidin g citizen and desires to live a pe a ceful life. 9. Fu r ther, the primary considera t ion in matters where the petitioner/appel l ant(s) is/are involved in other NDPS cases ought to be the

¶28

MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶29

CRA-S-1471-SB-2007

¶30

¶31

severity of the offence. Moreover, Co-ordina t e benches of this Court have deemed it appr o priate to reduce the sentence i m posed upon the accused to be the custody alr e ady undergone by them, in spit e of their involvement in other cases pertainin g to the NDPS Act in Pritam Singh @ Preeti vs. State of Punjab in CRA-S-1769-SB-2010 decided on 0 3 .04.2025, Ram Lal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-986-SB-2005 decided on 1 1 .05.2018 , Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-68-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023, Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-34-SB-2005 decided on 2 8 .04.2023 and Gurmail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab in CRA-S-1976-SB-2007 decided on 28.03.2025.

¶32

Th e refore, in view of the discus s ion above, present appeal is disposed of in t h e following terms:-

¶33

(i) The judgment dated 14.06.200 7 passed by the learned Special Ju d ge, Moga is upheld.

¶34

(ii) The order of sentence dated 1 4.06.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigoro u s imprisonment for four years an d fine along with default mech a nism awarded to the appellant is r educed to the period of sentenc e already undergone by him.

¶35

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) May 21, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶36

MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Ravi Sharma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Sharma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bant Singh Vs St.of Hy.

Bhavishya Hans Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Pb.

Sunita Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mangal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab